Mr. Speaker, surely the minister can see the difference between a regular political fundraising event and one where a minister is soliciting clients of his own department. If the minister cannot see the difference there, we really have an ethics problem.

No ethics code can be enforced as long as the government practices double standards when it comes to dealing with its own members. Liberal backbenchers who occasionally vote against the government at the direction of their constituents are punished. "I will not sign your nomination papers", says the Prime Minister. However cabinet ministers found flouting the federal code of ethics are defended and even applauded for their actions.

As a discipline for violating the conflict of interest guidelines has the Prime Minister told the heritage minister that he will not be signing his nomination papers at the next election?

Mr. Speaker, speaking of double standards, it seems to me that the leader of the Reform Party should explain to the House of Commons why he asked for his justice critic to be removed when he did not like some of the positions he took.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said that the federal government would follow the letter and spirit of the Quebec referendum act.

Yet, in a letter addressed to business people concerning the referendum campaign, the Privy Council suggests that they make a list of speakers to include current, former or retired business leaders who would like to speak in Quebec, and to give those names to the Privy Council or to the Council for Canadian Unity.

How can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs justify giving the Council for Canadian Unity, which is a charity receiving 60 per cent of its funding from the Department of Canadian Heritage, responsibility for the pre-referendum campaign on behalf of the Privy Council?

Mr. Speaker, the Council for Canadian Unity is an independent organization. This registered private organization has no official link with us. The government finances the council because that organization seeks to promote Canadian unity, which is a perfectly valid goal.

When the opposition or its big brother finances the council on Quebec sovereignty with my taxes and with the taxes paid to the Quebec government, it is clear that the opposition's big brother uses taxpayers' money to sell its option.

In that same letter, the Privy Council suggests to business people that they should fund the advertising or

promotion costs of events such as the 30th anniversary of the flag, or citizenship ceremonies.

How can the minister claim that federal advertising on the Canadian flag and citizenship is not part of a huge multi-million dollar pre-referendum campaign, considering that the Privy Council is asking companies to integrate these themes into their advertising, in the fight against the yes side in the Quebec referendum?

Mr. Speaker, how can the opposition dare to ask such a question, considering who is doing the advertising in the Montreal metro, who held the regional commissions, who is using Quebec taxpayers' money to carry out, through its departments, false advertising on what goes on-

Mr. Speaker, all Canadians are grateful that the troops at Ilijas and Pale have finally been released.

Now that they are free, the government is also free to address our continued presence in Bosnia in a more objective way. Approximately 700 Canadians remain on their base at Visoko, stuck between hostile armies in the midst of an escalating conflict. They are pinned down by land mines and threatened if they try to leave their compound.

Will the minister now accept that continuing this deployment is pointless, dangerous and irresponsible and that Canada should urge withdrawal as soon as possible?